According to Dr. Lustig, a specialist on pediatric hormone disorders and the leading expert in childhood obesity at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, sugar is a “toxin” or a “poison.” And by “sugar,” Lustig means not only the white granulated stuff that we put in coffee and sprinkle on cereal — technically known as sucrose — but also high-fructose corn syrup, which has already become without Lustig’s help what he calls “the most demonized additive known to man.” As a health conscious person, I enjoyed the video and the article entitled, Sugar: The Bitter Truth. Just to highlight the article, it argues the following: Sugar is not just an empty calorie, he says; its effect on us is much more insidious. “It’s not about the calories,” he says. “It has nothing to do with the calories. It’s a poison by itself.” According to Lustig sugar is the not only the cause of Western obesity and diabetes (Type 2), but is also the likely dietary cause of several other chronic ailments widely considered to be diseases of Western lifestyles — heart disease, hypertension and many common cancers among them. In Lustig’s view, sugar should be thought of, like cigarettes and alcohol, as something that’s killing people. Now Lustig is not the first person to indict sugar. There have been others, such as Haven Emerson, John Yudkin, just to name a few.Many of us in the West grew up believing that the most that could come from eating too much sugar was tooth decay and that sugar and high fructose corn syrup (H.F.C.S.) because they lack any protein, vitamins, minerals, antioxidants or fiber, they are “empty calories.” The more you consume the more weight you gained. Hence, the solution was simple, consume less. Lustig’s argument, however, is not about empty calories but about the way sugar is metabolizes in the body. He debunks the idea that a calorie is a calorie. He states that although 100 calories may be 100 calories, (isocaloric) the body depending upon the chemical constituency of the calories, will not metabolize it the same (isometabolic), resulting in different effects on the body. The difference is the fructose component of sugar and H.F.C.S. is metabolized primarily by the liver, while the glucose from sugar and starches is metabolized by every cell in the body. Consuming sugar (fructose and glucose) means the liver will be worker harder, and if the sugar is in liquid form — soda or fruit juices — the fructose and glucose will hit the liver quicker. The speed with which the liver has to do its work will also affect how it metabolizes the fructose and glucose. The liver will convert much of this sugar into fat, which will ultimately induce a condition known as insulin resistance, which is now considered the fundamental problem in obesity, and the underlying defect in heart disease and in the type of diabetes, type 2, that is common to obese and overweight individuals. It might also be the underlying defect in many cancers. Overconsumption of sugar doesn't seem so innocent or benign anymore. Boy, were we lied to!

Afrikan American children and teens in the United States are almost twice as likely as their white peers to consume more than 500 calories a day of sugary beverages, according to a study that covered tens of thousands of people. Afrikan American children, the study found, are more than twice as likely as whites on any given day to consume fruit drinks containing little actual fruit. Fruit juices, for example, range from 100 percent actual fruit juice to those with as little as 10 percent fruit juice and plenty of added sugars. In terms of obesity, Afrikan American women have the highest rates of being overweight or obese compared to other groups in the U.S. About four out of five Afrikan American women are overweight or obese. In 2010, Afrikan Americans were 1.4 times as likely to be obese as Non- Hispanic whites.They were also 70% more likely to be obese than non-Hispanic white women, and Afrikan American girls were 80% more likely to be overweight than non-Hispanic white girls.When it comes to diabetes, African Americans are twice as likely to be diagnosed with it than non-Hispanic whites. In addition, they are more likely to suffer complications from diabetes, such as end-stage renal disease and lower extremity amputations. Although African Americans have the same or lower rate of high cholesterol as their non-Hispanic white counterparts, they are more likely to have high blood pressure. In 2008, Afrikan American men were 2.7 times as likely to start treatment for end-stage renal disease related to diabetes, as compared to non-Hispanic white men. The data also shows that diabetic Afrikan Americans were 1.7 times as likely as diabetic whites to be hospitalized, and they were 2.2 times as likely to die from diabetes.

Concerning cancer, African Americans have the highest mortality rate of any racial and ethnic group for all cancers combined and for most major cancers. Death rates for all major causes of death are higher for African Americans than for whites, contributing in part to a lower life expectancy for both African American men and African American women. African American men were 1.4 times and 1.5 times, respectively, more likely to have new cases of lung and prostate cancer; twice as likely to have new cases of stomach cancer; had lower cancer survival rates for lung, colon and pancreatic cancer, as compared to non-Hispanic white men. (Sometimes surviving 5-years less than their racial counterparts.) African American men also are 2.4 times as likely to die from prostate cancer. African American women were 10% less likely to have been diagnosed with breast cancer, however, they were almost 40% more likely to die from breast cancer; 2.2 times as likely to have been diagnosed with stomach cancer, and they are 2.4 times as likely to die from stomach cancer, as compared to non-Hispanic white women.

In American society, sugar overconsumption is having a devastating impact on the health of everyone. But its impact hurts Afrikan American more. What has to be done? Rid ourselves of the Western diet. We have to un-Westernized our diets as we do the same for our minds, our worldview. A new study suggests the more Western your diet is — meaning heavy on meat, starch and sugar — the higher your risk for cancer and other diseases of the Western world. The study followed older Asian women who had been placed on two separate diets: traditional cuisine rich in vegetables and fish and a Westernized diet heavy on red meat and sugar. Women who adopted the Western diet had higher rates of breast cancer. Marilyn Tseng, a study researcher at the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, stated: "Our study shows a Western-style diet seems to increase [the] risk of cancer in Chinese women, which traditionally is a low-risk population for breast cancer." Breast cancer rates in China are a quarter of those in the U.S. "Adopting a more Western diet increases intake of saturated fat," said Keith Thomas Ayoob, a professor of nutrition at Albert Einstein College of Medicine. "It may be squeezing out whole grains and vegetables." This study is the latest evidence that the typical American diet is high risk. Americans can take steps toward improving their health by considering Asian-inspired diets. I would simply say to Afrikan people, we should re-Afrikanize our diet.

Though the above notice is fraudulent, the movement to reclassify pedophilia is afoot

Since the 1960’s sexual revolution the homosexual’s status has changed from a person suffering from a mental disorder to a member of a minority group, front and center in the struggle for human rights. Western society has almost come full circle as today homosexuality is considered a sexual preference, a sexual orientation, and a natural variation. Pedophilia may be undergoing a similar history.

A California Congresswoman, Rep. Jackie Speier CA (D), wants to federalize a state law to prohibit counseling to change a person’s sexual orientation. Though this may not alarm many folks, the bill classifies pedophilia as a sexual orientation. According to the bill's language, a mental health counselor could be sanctioned if there was an attempt to get a pedophile or gay individual to change his behavior or speak negatively about their behavior as it relates to sexuality. The bill wants states to prohibit efforts to change a minor’s sexual orientation, even if the minor requests it, saying that doing so is “dangerous and harmful.” The text of the bill doesn’t specifically ban “gay” conversion therapy but instead prohibits attempts to change a person’s sexual orientation. “Sexual orientation change efforts’ means any practices by mental health providers that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation,” the legislation says. When Republicans tried to add an amendment specifying that, “pedophilia is not covered as an orientation” the Democrats defeated the amendment. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) stated that all alternative sexual lifestyles should be protected under the law, and accordingly decided that pedophilia is a sexual orientation that should be equally as embraced as homosexuality. Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, said, “This language is so broad and vague, it arguably could include all forms of sexual orientation, including pedophilia. It’s not just the orientation that is protected—the conduct associated with the orientation is protected as well.”

The major concern here, is, are legislators opening up the proverbial "can of worms?" If pedophilia becomes classified as a sexual orientation, then discrimination laws will apply to pedophiles. That means you will not be able to block a pedophile from working in any capacity that might be considered high-risk. Recently, a United States District Court Judge, William Shubb, sided with Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) by granting their plaintiffs a preliminary injunction against the legislation, which is known as California SB 1172. “Because the court finds that SB 1172 is subject to strict scrutiny and is unlikely to satisfy this standard, the court finds that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims based on violations of their rights to freedom of speech under the First Amendment,” wrote Judge Shubb. “This victory sends a clear signal to all those who feel they can stifle religious freedom, free speech, and the rights of parents without being contested,” said PJI President, Brad Dacus. “We at PJI are ready to fight this battle all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary. “This will be a long, grueling battle with tremendous consequences for generations to come. We are grateful to those who are willing to support us in this critical time to preserve our freedoms and protect our children,” he continued.

SB 1172 establishes a dangerous precedent for normalizing the behavior of pedophiles while stripping parents of their rights and peace of mind. However, you can be certain that this is only the beginning. The legislation was been blocked but it will return. Why? It has to do with the history of the Gay Liberation movement itself, as well as the history of Western civilization.

To begin with, "What do homosexual’s themselves have to say about bisexuality or pedophilia?" "Do they view it as a preference or orientation similar to their own?" Conversely, what do the bisexuals and pedophiles say about their orientation and that of the homosexuals’? Many bisexuals dichotomously have created opposition between themselves, and what they call, monosexuals, meaning the exclusively homosexual or heterosexual individuals. Homosexuals, on the other hand, essentially refuse to believe bisexuality is possible, considering it as a step along the road to homosexual exclusivity. For many homosexuals, bisexuality devalues their sexuality, suggesting it is a question of choice rather than orientation. Nevertheless, from the beginning of the Gay Liberation movement, homosexuals and bisexuals have been allies in struggle. But increasing tensions between the groups lead bisexuals in the mid-1970’s to form their own organizations. The schism between the two communities increased around 1985 when many people began to vilified bisexuals as the “conduits” for AIDS from the homosexual to the heterosexual community.

John Money, a leading sexologist felt that humanity was on a path towards bisexuality. But more importantly he also felt that both sexual researchers and the public do not make distinctions between affectional pedophilia and sadistic pedophilia. Money believed that affectional pedophilia was about love and not sex. He argued that if a boy aged ten or eleven is intensely erotically attracted toward a man in his twenties or thirties, and the relationship is totally mutual, and the bonding is genuinely totally mutual, then it is not pathological. He viewed affectional paedophilia, like sexuality of any kind, not as a behavioral disorder, but an example of a societal and therefore, a superficial, ideological concept. Attacking and discrediting the contemporary Gay Liberation movement’s emphasis on the biological basis of homosexuality in the United States is gay activist and pedophile David Thorstad, who believes the movement retreated from its vision of sexual liberation, in favor of integration and assimilation into existing sociopolitical structures. As a result of this retreat, Thorstad believes the movement has increasingly marginalize even demonize pederasty or cross-generational love. Some middle-class homosexuals, lesbians, and feminists, say it has nothing to do with gay liberation and other go as far as to claim it is a heterosexual phenomenon, or worse “sexual abuse.” According to Thorstad:

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU). The African Union (AU) has lined up several commemorative celebrations this week with the intention of reaffirming the spirit of pan-Africanism and African solidarity. However, several questions remain: Will the celebrations transcend both the cynicism and idealism that have accompanied previous debates on pan-Africanism? At a basic level, is pan-Africanism achievable? If it is, what concrete steps should be taken to move the continent towards that desired unity? The idea of uniting Africa historically typified the quest for self-assertion and resistance to oppression and discrimination. In the recent past, however, in the context of the increasing global challenges affecting Africa, pan-Africanism evolved into a call for continental socio-economic and political unity. The transformation of the OAU into the AU was prompted by this desire to accelerate the process of integration. While there is a general consensus on the need for African unity, the form this should take remains unclear. Some pan-Africanist debates have often bordered on idealistic expediency with no clear and concrete methodology towards that vision. During a number of previous AU meetings on the subject, discussions often ended up taking political slants, instead of being guided by high-level expertise and sound conception. The consequence often was clouded debates that had limited practical value. An example is the dialectic debates that pitted a group led by the self-styled African ‘king of kings’, the late Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, against another led by South Africa under Thabo Mbeki. Gaddafi used Libya’s vast oil resources not only to sell the grandiose idea of the United States of Africa but also to become its driving force. He advocated for the immediate unification of African states into one national and sovereign federation. His main motivation seemed to be his personal desire to become the leader of the union government. It is worth noting, however, that Gaddafi’s enthusiasm for the immediate establishment of a union government helped other African leaders to react to his sometimes-impractical schemes with relatively better alternatives. This is what led observers like Laura Seay, a political scientist at Morehouse College in Atlanta, to suggest that, ‘without Gaddafi, the pan-African movement is dead’. The alternative to Gaddafi’s immediate unification of Africa was the step-by-step approach toward a union government. Often referred to as the gradualist school, this position was advanced by Mbeki and Uganda’s Yoweri Museveni, among others. They preferred the integration of Regional Economic Communities (RECs) into the building blocks of the union government. While this sounds more practical, sceptics argue that RECs have produced limited socio-politicalexperiences of solidarity and that the proponents of this thinking have not demonstrated at what point RECs will ultimately be harmonised into a union government. Overall, if pan-Africanism is a socio-political world view/movement that encourages the solidarity and economic progress of Africans, it remains difficult to reconcile the rhetoric about pan-Africanism with the ambivalence with which African leaders seem to regard building genuine African unity. A basic tenet that is often ignored in pan-Africanism debates is the need to create a union of African people. This means that the pan-Africanist project must focus on African people, rather than African states. The unity of Africans must be rooted in the mobilisation of the African masses across the continent’s artificial borders. The power of African citizenship can be harnessed through the free movement of people, goods and services, obviously within agreed-upon rules. Unfortunately, today the majority of African countries have put in place impediments to uniting African people with expensive visas and strict immigration rules. Sometimes there is genuine fear that the free movement of people, goods and services might result in job losses and increased pressure on housing and infrastructure, among others, in recipient countries. However, if considered rules are put in place, the benefits of free movement can outweigh the losses. Based on the experiences of the East African Community and the Economic Community of West African States, it is apparent that the free movement of people, goods and services has concrete economic benefits. Those opposed to it, however, seem motivated by its perceived threat to national cohesion, something that pan-Africanism seeks to transcend. As the AU commemorates the 50th anniversary of the founding of the OAU, its leadership has to realise the need to develop a sense of direction from within. If pan-Africanism is treated less as an option and more as a necessity, solidarity and cooperation must be promoted at continental level. At present, the AU is a free association of sovereign states working to further members’ shared aims. Other than the vague aim of ‘ever closer union’ in its declaration, the AU has no policy to create either a federation or a union government. With the 50th anniversary celebrations, the AU leadership needs to think critically about how to transcend the perception that the AU is an exclusive enclave of a small elite. If the AU desires to energise pan-Africanism it needs to develop the capacity for common action at the continental level to tackle the issues and challenges of a shared destiny. In other words, the AU needs to define its authority in a manner that attracts ordinary citizens to its cause. It can do so by transforming its principles, norms and values into practice so that they can have an impact on the lives of African citizens. It can also pursue the option of a union government based around those RECs or countries that are willing to join, while surrounded by a confederation of others that may initially not be willing to join the union. In this way, any state or REC that wishes to join the core group of the union government will be able to do so. The sole precondition for joining should be a willingness to help press ahead with the political project. Overall, there is no doubt that pan-Africanist solidarity can strengthen Africa. The problem is that the crisis of the post-independent African state and the ascendancy of nationalist feelings have largely worked against the optimism of translating the pan-African project into reality. While the AU celebrates this week under the theme ‘Pan-Africanism and the African Renaissance’, African leaders need to boldly create a more responsive model of unity for all citizens to follow. They need to pluck up the courage to introduce concrete procedures that can unite the African people, as well as states.

Opinions on the impact of the China-Africa relations differ among observers. For instance, Thierry Bangui, a development consultant and a native of the Central African Republic, and Fweley Diangitukua, a Congolese economist, believe that the mutual benefit (win-win situation) is a hoax (InfoSud 2010). These observers argue that China importing its own workforce to work in aid projects granted to Africa is disadvantage for Africa but beneficial to China since it allows China to solve its domestic unemployment problem (Gaye 2006). They claim that China offers astronomical projects to Africa but that fewer jobs were created in recipient countries, especially for locals. In fact, the same observation was made by Beuret and Michel (Beuret and Michel 2008). It is speculated that part of the Chinese government's policy is to encourage Chinese entrepreneurs to travel abroad and seek greener pastures and that Africa happens to be the destination these entrepreneurs were privileged to be (Li et al. 2012; Cisse 2012). These investors are believed to come with fierce competition (as they are allegedly supported by the Chinese government) especially in the informal economic sector, which is normally a reserved area for local entrepreneurs. It has been pointed out that this situation has the tendency of causing conflict between the disadvantaged locals and Chinese entrepreneurs (Adisu et al. 2010). In Dakar (Senegal) for instance, there were reports that half of the local traders were bankrupt because of cheap made-in China goods imported by Chinese businessmen. Consequently, unemployment was said to be on the rise and that life was increasingly difficult by the day (Beuret and Michel 2008).

ARE CHINA’S RELATIONS WITH AFRICA NEOCOLONIAL?

The emergence of China as a new economic power and the deep relations it has with Africa drew and received global attention. For Africa which was formerly controlled economically by its development partners, now enjoys relations with a new and emerging power on a seemingly equal footing. The economic control of Africa and its natural resources have become the major issues for opposing interests by the big powers (Van Dijk 2009). As expected, China’s advancement into Africa is no exception; its relation with Africa has received condemnations from Africa’s traditional donors. In fact, the term neo-colonialism is usually used to describe the relations between China and Africa (Rotberg 2008). Some argued that the China-Africa relation was not different from the relation Africa had with the West (Gaye and Brautigam 2002). Yet still, others are worried about the fact that Beijing was cooperating with regimes denounced by the international community (Sudan and Zimbabwe) (Van Dijk 2009).

On the issue of colonization, Beuret and Michel estimated the number of Chinese in Africa to be around 750,000 while Zequan Huang, a reporter for the People's Daily (Renmin Ribao) put the figure to be around 500,000 and stressed that this could not be described as colonizing Africa. Similarly, Martyn Davies, director of the Centre for Chinese Studies at Stellenbosch University in South Africa argued that Chinese presence in Africa could not be described as colonization in fairness. To buttress his point, he pointed out that ‘there are 2,000 Chinese companies in Singapore and no one speaks of colonization, there are only 900 in Africa, the second continent in the world and everybody speak of colonization’ (Financial Times 2008).

CHINA’S LACK OF RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

Meanwhile, Western scholars have also criticized the relations. They cite in particular, the perceived lack of China's respect for human rights and reluctance to fight corruption (Alessi and Hanson 2012). Alden (Alden 2007) is one of the few to have recorded these negative sentiments. In ‘China in Africa’ at page 104, he discussed the official U.S rhetoric focusing on issues of democracy and natural resources. He emphasized that the U.S perceives China’s presence in Africa an obstacle to (what they consider as) the fragile process of democratization and of course U.S grip on African resources (Alden 2007).

In this modern time, information management is essential and critical especially with respect to the terms and conditions of loans, investment and aid provided by developing partners to developing nations. For example, Brautigam in ‘The Dragon's Gift: the real story of China in Africa’ at page 2, used the term ‘gifts’ and ‘mysterious donations’ to describe loans, investment and aid projects offered by China to Africa because of the lack (according to her) of transparency in the funds paid to African countries. She indicated that aid provided by China raised very sensitive questions bothering on transparency, corruption and human rights issues (Brautigam 2009). Note that these issues have been raised severally by various people in the Western media. In 2006 for instance, Wieczorek Zeul, the then German development minister, stated in an interview that China perceived development in Europe as an alarm that just sounded. She openly criticized China’s aid policy to Africa and insisted that loans to Africa ‘should be linked with conditions’ (ECDPM 2007).

THE PROBLEM OF LOANS WITHOUT CONDITIONS

Similarly in 2007, Philippe Maystdt, past President of the European Bank, renewed this propaganda. He claimed that loans could drive the debt of Africa to dangerous levels if China continued to lend too easily; in other words, lend to Africa without conditions. He then, asked the European Union (EU) to open dialogue with China to discuss the problems of loans without conditions (ECDPM 2007). In the same year, Hilary James Benn, former British secretary for international development, cautioned the European Community during a visit to Malawi and boldly declared that ‘Chinese aid do more harm than good’ in Africa (ECDPM 2007). According to him, the unconditional aid could lead to setbacks in terms of democracy and human rights developments. Furthermore, Louis Michel, European commissioner for development, during an annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank in 2006, advised the European Union to cease attacks on China on the issue of interest-free loans granted to the poorest countries. In fact, he strongly recommended inclusion of China as a partner for promotion of effective development of Africa (ECDPM 2007); in other words, to politically or strategically muzzle China. In a newspaper published by the China Youth Daily and the China Review in February 2007, Solana Javie, a former Representative of the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union, supported the proposal of Louis Michel (Solana 2007). Perhaps, with these comments in mind, the then Director General of the European Commission launched a conference on the 28th of June 2007 dubbed ‘Partners in competition, EU, Africa and China’. This brought together 180 think-tanks and experts such as policy makers, academicians and representatives of civil society and business from China, Africa and the EU to deliberate on the way forward (ECDPM 2007).

The Bamana originated as a subset of the Mandinka people (also called Mandingoes) who founded the Mali Empire in the 13th Century. The Bamana also known as the Bambara, are related to the Bozo, and the Soninke, who established the Wagadu or Ghana Empire. The Songhai Empire was also established by a Mandéspeaking group. It was not until the 1740s that the Bamana established their empire. While Islam was making steady inroads in West Afrika, the Bamana stood out as a people dedicated to their traditions, and champion of their spiritual beliefs. Growing from farming communities in Ouassoulou, between Sikasso and Côte d'Ivoire, Bamana age grade societies (called Tons) began to develop a state structure which became the Bamana Empire. Although most Bamana today adhere to Islam, many still practice the traditional rituals, especially in honoring their ancestors. However, it is in their initiation societies that we see the richness and power of Bamana thought. The concepts of Yo and reincarnation are particularly interesting. Yo is the essence of Bamana thought. All materials used in the various ceremonies and rituals, the elders teach are expressions of Yo (silence). The Bamana assert that all is Yo, the spirit of No-thing. Yo, Bambara elders say, comes from itself, is known by itself, departs out of itself, from the nothingness that is itself. Faro, the Creator, who the human being is created in the image of, is the initial form of yo; the entire universe is an emanation of yo. At the core of Bambara teachings is the Word, which emanates from yo and echoed back to itself, producing consciousness, the foundation of humanity. The goal of humanity is to maintain the harmony of the Word, and in this regard, the human being is a copartner with Faro.

The Bamana concept of reincarnation is equally as fascinating. We are most familiar with the Hindu notion of reincarnation, in which Hinduism conceives of a world soul, the paramatman or Brahma, which is the essence of existence. Each individual contains a small portion of the paramatman, the atman. In Hinduism, the world of creation, maya, is the conditioned world; a world that lacks permanence, and thus is considered illusory. Maya is filled with grief, suffering, and ignorance.68 Life’s ultimate aim is to reunite one’s atman with Brahma, a state known as moska, and escape from the world of maya. According to Hinduism, this requires many incarnations as man has to evolve through his experiences and finally come to know reality. True knowledge tears apart the veil of maya and frees the soul from the cycle of rebirths. The Hindu conception of reincarnation suggests the pessimism Diop stated existed in the northern cradle. According to the Two Cradle Theory, Indian civilization constituted a zone of confluence. Aryan invaders created a racial caste from a pre-existing occupational caste system, when they imposed their northern cradle pessimism on the indigenous southern cradle population, the Dravidian, resulting in Hinduism and Indian civilization. Much of Hinduism reflects the worldview of its Aryans invaders.The Bamana on the other hand, have an entirely different take on reincarnation, and it is one that reinforces the Afrikan worldview. According to the Bamana, each person upon dying has an aspect of their soul (ancestral soul) that returns to the Creator. At each rebirth the Creator retains part of this soul until finally the person becomes totally reabsorbed. The person becomes united with the original unicity of the Supreme Being. The Bamana reveal that the purpose of Korè is to create an inner person who can “resist” the Creator’s effort of reabsorption, by that, making it possible for the ancestral soul to be reborn on earth continually. Man would have conquered the prerogative of the Creator (reabsorption), and consequently, become his “equal.” There is no desire among the Bambara to unite with primordial existence and this remains consistent with Afrikan thought. In the Afrikan worldview, the earth (Nature/Creation) is the arena where we as humans realize our divinity. Hinduism’s notion of maya, is a projection of their primarily Aryan pessimistic worldview, which seeks to escape Creation, while the Afrikan seeing Creation as good, seeks to return to it continually.

I'm no stranger to midwifery. My maternal great-grandmother was a midwife, and like Harriet Tubman, she never lost a passenger. And a friend of mine delivered two of his children by himself. I was so deeply impressed with his feat that I decided I would study midwifery and if my wife and I decided to have a child, I would deliver it. My wife agreed; however, my time did not permit me to study sufficiently, so when my wife did conceive, we decided to have a midwife attend our home birth. This was my wife's first child but my third. My two previous children had natural births. They took place in the hospital but that was it. No inducing drugs just us in the birthing room, waiting, and the nurse who came in when it was time. I called her in when I saw the water burst and the top of my son's head. I waited until that point because I had called the nurse in on a false alarm or two previously. My third child was born in our living room with many family members present. It was beautiful, and I cried tears of joy for the first time in my life. Everything was relaxed, comfortable, and we felt secure, having total confidence in the process, and our decision. I had never thought seriously about the economic of childbirth until I watched the Business of Being Born. After watching the video my mind starting analyzing it in the context of my work, of worldview, patriarchy, misogyny, and capitalism, of course.

The experience of childbirth, is what sets male and female apart. It is the most important event in the life of a person. It is the complementary event to death. And when women give birth, the experience itself, is the closest thing that a person can feel or experience in terms of God-consciousness or God-likeness--you become a giver of life. I have watched it in awe and amazement. And although I am cognizant of the force or forces at work, which are greater than the mother or both of us, it is through her this is all happening. I have to honor that, and by extension or association, I must honor her--the divine feminine! I have seen the look on a woman's face when after labor she sees, touches the child for the first time--it's priceless. And if I was awestruck watching it, I can only imagine her feelings as the active participant. But it is an experience that males were not meant to have. Males have to reason, if we are reasonable, that the Supreme Being designed things the way they are for a reason, and so why would "He/She" make women or females the vessels of life, if they were not the best suited for it. That's a hell of a responsibility. There's got to be something special and unique about their constitution, their very being--the divine feminine.

I remember when I read the early church fathers' justification for women's inferiority. St Jerome said: “Woman is the gate of the devil, the path of wickedness, the sting of the serpent, in a word a perilous object.” St Augustine claimed man, not woman, was made in the image of God. He argued, women though biologically more complex by virtue of the womb alone, were incomplete beings and needed their male counterparts for completion, while men were complete unto themselves. St Thomas Aquinas, a the 13th-century Christian theologian, said woman was “created to be man’s helpmate, but her unique role is in conception . . . since for other purposes men would be better assisted by other men.” The italics are mind. These men are belittling and downplaying the very thing that males cannot do; moreover, how can they devalue the very being and process that got their asses here in the first place--a woman and the experience of childbirth. If ever there was a case to be made for human divinity, what better example or instance exist, other than childbirth? When I step back and further reason, I see that in fact, the entire reproductive process is unequally designed with females having greater responsibility than males. It is her body that houses, feeds, and protects the new life. It is the female that forms a unicity with all new life, both male and female. After the child is born, it is the female that provides the natural nourishment, and culturally she will continue that role as she is the main provider and preparer of foodstuffs, especially in traditional Afrikan cultures. In Afrikan cultures this pivotal or central role is what determined her closeness to God, her divinity even, and it led to the formation of matrifocal societies. Given that a man act reciprocally in the process of childbirth, he sends his seed, provides for the mother-to-be, and he protected the society as a whole, but it is easily and more obviously perceived whose role in childbirth is primary, and whose is secondary.

In Western cultures in the early part of the twentieth century, the allopathic medical community began a campaign against midwifery. This was simultaneously a campaign against the power of women, as most midwives were women, while the vast majority of doctors were men. At the time, 95% of deliveries occurred at home with midwives attendant. So, this was an institution building campaign, as well, as hospitals would replace the home as primary childbirth facilities. The campaign presented midwives as dirty, unclean, and as a poor option; while the allopathic medical establishment presented hospitals as the clean, safe option, with better trained professionals—doctors (and nurses). The truth was that at that time doctors, unlike midwives, received no hands-on training in birthing. Even today the great majority of doctors in the U.S. have never witnessed a natural birth.

Hospitals almost always intervene in the birth process, to make it as fast and profitable as possible. The costs of births in the U.S. are at least twice as high as any other country in the world, yet the results are essentially the worst in every category. The current average prices for different births, without the assistance of insurance are as follows: C-Section - $10,000 - $12,000; Vaginal delivery - $13,000; Home birth with midwife (all expenses) - $2,000 - $4,000. Doctors actually look for excuses to intervene, and unnecessary interventions are always dangerous. And allopathic medicine has a history of intervention with unforeseen consequences. For example, in the 1930's, X-rays were used on pregnant women until it was discovered that they gave the unborn children cancers. In the 1940's-1960's, morphine and scopolamine were administered successively to induce 'Twilight Sleep.' It was believed that this would change the experience of labor forever, by irradiating pain. In fact, it merely produced amnesia, so the women had no recollection of the event, along with producing a lack of self-control. This lead to women being placed in straight jackets and strapped down to beds, in order to stop them from hurting themselves, or the medical staff. It was not unusual for doctors to leave them in that condition for days -- sometimes laying in their own urine and feces. In the 1960s, the drug Thalidomide was given to pregnant women, which resulted in infants being born without arms and legs, or with other deformities. In the early '90s, Cytotec (misoprostol) was used to induce labor in women who had previously had a C-section. This caused thousands of women to suffer from ruptured uterus.' In 1999, this practice was abandoned, and since then Cytotec is used for abortions.

This attacks against midwives continued in the media for the next 30 years after it initially began, in spite of the statistical reality that midwife-assisted births were categorically safer than those conducted in hospitals, and by 1955, only 1% of U.S. births took place in the home. Child-birthing, in a matter of fifty years had changed from a home-based women-centered industry that was relatively uncomplicated and safe, into a hospital based, man-centered industry, that was becoming more and more profitable for doctors, and more and more complicated and dangerous for women, and infants. For example, today the U.S. has the second worst newborn death rate in the developed world. The U.S. also has the highest maternal mortality rates.

Anthropologists have documented an almost universal pattern in Afrikan cosmologies, particularly farming societies. Through myths employing metaphors of war, sex, and death, these societies have created a symbolic world built on the realities of time and space. These two realities combined to form the structured universe, culture and human beings. The general pattern of these myths show these cultures recognized that a Supreme Being existed before Creation. The Supreme Being, within this primordial realm, divided into “itself,” becoming “sky” and “earth.” Usually, the sky (the Creator), now a masculine being, and the Earth, a feminine being, through sexual interaction (marriage) populate the world with various beings. These beings are not fully “human,” they are incomplete beings that live in the wilderness, non-cultural space (or a liminal space). Next, the cultural hero appears and through conquest over these primordial beings, establishes culture and time. Often, rather than by conquest, the cultural hero through marriage to a female representative of the primal beings, establishes culture and himself as king. Through sexual intercourse with his wife, the king sustains a connection to the land. Next, the king performs sacrifices to the local earth-spirits to receive blessings of fertility. Human marriages re-enact the mythical marriages of the Creator and Earth and of the cultural hero and the female representative of the primal beings. Each human child receives a “soul” from his mother, one from his father and one directly from the Supreme Being. Every society’s adults prepare its youth for adulthood through initiation rites. An assault on the body marks these rites. With their successful completion, the youth’s concerns shift from his self-centered world of childhood, to the adult world of communal responsibility and cultural history. Youth emerge as adults with a sense of divinity in themselves, but just as important, with a sense of divinity in the complementary sex. This blog has presented an Afrikan initiation rite, the n'kanga of the Ndembu in some detail. It demonstrated the centrality of the human body as a symbol in a larger world of symbols. In yesterday's blog entitled, The Bamana Revisited, I showed that the Bamana spiritual orientation placed great emphasis on the body as well. Many of you familiar with Freemasonry, will recall its great emphasis placed on “bodily assaults.” Greek fraternities have kept these bodily assaults, most of them long having lost their significance, remaining simply as “hazing.” But Freemasonry borrowed many of it rites from Islamic mysticism, who in turn borrowed them from remnants of Greek mystery schools, who had originally borrowed them from the Kemetic initiation system. The point is that Kemetic spirituality, through it initiation system, place great importance on the human body.

Why do Afrikan systems place so much emphasis and importance on the body in terms of spiritual growth? Afrikan societies will generally divide the self into 5-7 components usually identified in the West as souls. Society develops the different aspects of the self through various vehicles of cultures, i.e., dancing, food preparation, mask making, weaving. (Similar to the way Zen Buddhism uses archery or garden arrangement, to center and develop the soul/person.) So much emphasis is placed on the body for spiritual growth in Afrikan systems because the Afrikan views the body and spirit as a unit—two aspects of the self: the total person. Afrikan societies acknowledge the body as one of the various souls that make up the self. Spiritual work begins with the body because it viewed as the foundation of the self. Spiritual growth is not possible until one’s foundation is correct, and this means the body. No matter how high a mer (“pyramid”) or tekhen (“obelisk”) ascends to the heavens, its earthly foundation had to be secure. The body, breath and double (I am using the Western anthropological terms) are souls associated with animality, and constitute the “lower” or “junior” self. Hierarchically these souls are junior or lower to the ancestral and destiny souls, the latter being identified with "the spirit," and as coming directly from the Creator; Despite this, no “development” can happen without the lower souls. And the explanation is simple: the destiny soul’s direct link to the Creator makes it “perfect,” complete; hence all development must be on the less developed aspect of self such as the body, breath, and double. If would be foolish and a waste of time for a person to try and develop what is already perfect or complete; what one must develop is that which is closer to the foundation,closer to Creation. These aspects of the self or these souls are considered less mature" and interfere or disrupt the knowledge, the messages, or even the intuitive insight that emanates from the ancestral and especially the destiny soul. Therefore, it is only the lower self that can be developed, that must be disciplined in much the way one would an animal. That way the lower self is trained and enable to implement the impulses or directives from the higher self; that part of you that already knows, that is already developed. (What does development imply? That the body, breath, and double (along with the other souls) be aligned and brought under the direction of the destiny soul (the Yorùbá Ori, for example), enabling one to fulfill one's destiny.) The above offers an understanding of the Afrikan spiritual orientation. It is not simply a “spiritual” or “mental” exercise or activity. It is an activity that must engage the body. It is a spiritual orientation designed to develop the human being, who through properly living can become self-mastered. Part of our dilemma is Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, have relegated the body to an evil, worldly object, to be despised, degraded, belittled, and disrespected and having little or no role in spirtual growth and development; when in fact, in our traditional systems, the body had to be engaged in the process of becoming a human being. And this was only the beginning, for with everything properly aligned, one could become a "deity", neter, or orisha.

Jihad is the Arabic for what can be variously translated as "struggle" or "effort," or "to strive," "to exert," "to fight," depending on the context. In the West, the word is generally understood to mean "holy war" but jihad literally means "striving." Jihad appears 41 times in the Quran and frequently in the idiomatic expression "striving in the way of God (al-jihad fi sabil Allah)." The Qur'an uses different forms of the word but in most cases this striving, occurs in the context of opposing, or striving against, the unbeliever. However, the Qu'ran does not speficially call for jihad as a military struggle on behalf of Islam. The Quran, on the other hand, does refer to jihad as an internal, individual, spiritual struggle toward self-improvement, moral cleansing and intellectual effort. In one hadith the Prophet Muhammad speaks of the greater vs. the lesser jihad, stating the armed-struggle version of holy war was "the little jihad," while the spiritual, individual version of holy war--the war within oneself--was "the great jihad." Because of this, some Islamic jurists stress this distinction. But most authorities consider this hadith spurious and a forgery. The relative importance of these two forms of jihad is a matter of controversy within Islam. (There is also a specific type of jihad that some Arab countries allow. The Arabic term (jihad al-nikah) describes a phenomenon, of women traveling to the battlefield to provide comfort—and sexual favors—for the Mujahideen, those engaged in jihad. Some hardline jihadists consider the practice a legitimate complement to jihad.)

Sufism also classifies Jihad into two parts: the " Jihad Akbar (great) and Jihad Asghar (little). According to sufism, the Prophet Muhammad put the emphasis on the "Greater Jihad" by saying, "Holy is the warrior who is at war with himself." In this sense external wars and strife are seen as but a satanic counterfeit of the true "jihad," which can only be fought and won within. There is no salvation for man without his own efforts being added to the work of self-refinement. Here the "Holy Ones" gain the surname "Hadrat" or "The Presence." While various Islamic scholars, jurists, and writers debate the values of one form of jihad over the other, to those of us outside of Islam, it is evident that the inner jihad, the one concerned with personal development, would perhaps help to lessen the outer, militarily-oriented jihad. It is the inner jihad that would allow the peace of Islam to come to fruition; the lesser jihad will only continue to allow the critics of the religion to see Muslims as a patriarchal, misogynistic, imperialistic, and racist bunch.

Islam needs an infusion of Sufism in general and Afrikan Muslims in particular need to ground their Islam in the Afrikan worldview and Afrikan culture.

Ebola first arrived in Lagos, Nigeria—one of the largest cities in the world—on July 20. Global health officials feared the worst, warning that the disease could wreak untold havoc in the country.

But it hasn't turned out that way. To date, Nigeria has reported only 20 confirmed or probable Ebola cases in a nation of 174 million people. Equally remarkable, there have only been eight deaths--about half the fatality rate experienced by other countries involved in the current outbreak. In fact, Nigeria could be declared Ebola-free as early as October 12. (That date would be 42 days after the last case was diagnosed, or double the maximum amount of time needed for the disease to incubate in a human body—the standard used by global health authorities.)Nigeria's success in stopping the outbreak could have implications for other countries, including the United States. That's why the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) dispatched a team to the country this week to learn what went right.So how did local and international health authorities curb Ebola in Nigeria while infections have continued to rise dramatically in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea?Early identification: By the time Patrick Sawyer, the Liberian American who brought Ebola to Nigeria, arrived in Lagos on July 20, Nigerian officials were on the lookout for the disease. Sawyer was "acutely ill" when he landed at the airport, according to a CDC report. He went directly to a hospital, where doctors diagnosed him with malaria. But when anti-malaria treatments failed, doctors immediately began treating his symptoms as if they were Ebola. Sawyer was isolated in the hospital while doctors notified local officials of a possible case of Ebola and rushed blood samples to a local university for testing. (Sawyer died on July 25.)Information on Ebola in English and Hausa, a common language in Nigeria Nigerian Ministry of HealthCoordinating a response: Just three days after Sawyer arrived in Lagos, Nigerian officials—working with the World Health Organization, Doctors Without Borders, UNICEF, and the CDC—established an operations center to respond to the outbreak. In its report, the CDC praised the collective effort. "Immediately, the [Emergency response center] developed a functional staff rhythm that facilitated information sharing, team accountability, and resource mobilization while attempting to minimize the distraction of teams from their highest priorities," the agency wrote. Having all the relevant government and international authorities in one place helped streamline decision-making and ensured a "rapid, effective, and coordinated" response, according to the CDC.Tracing contacts—fast: With an emergency response team in place, the next step was to find anyone else who might have the virus. Over the course of the outbreak, a team that included more than a dozen Nigerian, WHO, and CDC epidemiologists and 150 "tracers" descended on Lagos and Port Harcourt—the city to which an infected doctor involved in Sawyer's treatment had fled—searching for anyone who had contact with an Ebola victim. Once a contact was identified, the teams interviewed people in a radius of up to two kilometers around the person's house. By September 24, according to the CDC, tracers had covered roughly 26,000 houses and had conducted 18,500 face-to-face visits throughout Nigeria looking for symptoms. In all, the team identified 894 people who had been in contact with Ebola patients. The teams monitored these contacts for symptoms, and isolated suspected cases. The aggressive tactics worked. As the chart below shows, most Ebola patients in Nigeria didn't infect anyone else.Despite an initial spate of infections linked to Patrick Sawyer, Nigerian and global health officials were able to rapidly contain the disease, limiting transmission to three generations of patients. CDC "The success we have had is a testimony to what we can achieve as people if we set aside our differences and work together," said Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan during an address in late August, toward the end of his country's outbreak. "We will continue to monitor the situation, and we will also support other affected African countries as much as we can because we cannot be completely safe from the virus as long as it continues to ravage some countries in our subregion and continent."

On October 9, 2004, Kenyan ecologist and Nobel Prize winner, Wangari Maathai restated her claim that the AIDS virus was a deliberately created biological agent. The 2004 Nobel Peace Prize winner said, "Some say that AIDS came from the monkeys, and I doubt that because we have been living with monkeys [since] time immemorial, others say it was a curse from God, but I say it cannot be that. "Us black people are dying more than any other people in this planet." Maathai spoke at a press conference in Nairobi a day after winning the prize for her work in human rights and reversing deforestation across Africa. "It's true that there are some people who create agents to wipe out other people. If there were no such people, we could have not have invaded Iraq."Maathai, also the Kenyan deputy environment and natural resources minister and fearless speaker said. "In fact the HIV virus is created by a scientist for biological warfare. Why has there been so much secrecy about AIDS? When you ask where did the virus come from, it raises a lot of flags. That makes me suspicious."Africa accounts for 25 million out of the estimated 38 million people across the world infected with HIV, and the vast majority of infected Africans are women, according to UNAIDS estimates.The United States congratulated Maathai on winning the Nobel Peace Prize, but tempered its praise over her claims about AIDS. "She said (HIV/AIDS) was invented as a bio-weapon in some laboratory in the West," a senior State Department official said. "We don't agree with that."In a 2004 interview with Time, in response to questions concerning that report, Maathai replied, "I have no idea who created AIDS and whether it is a biological agent or not. But I do know things like that don't come from the moon. I have always thought that it is important to tell people the truth, but I guess there is some truth that must not be too exposed," and when asked what she meant, she continued, "I'm referring to AIDS. I am sure people know where it came from. And I'm quite sure it did not come from the monkeys." In response she issued the following statement:“I have warned people against false beliefs and misinformation such as attributing this disease to a curse from God or believing that sleeping with a virgin cures the infection. These prevalent beliefs in my region have led to an upsurge in rape and violence against children. It is within this context, also complicated by the cultural and religious perspective, that I often speak. I have therefore been shocked by the ongoing debate generated by what I am purported to have said. It is therefore critical for me to state that I neither say nor believe that the virus was developed by white people or white powers in order to destroy the African people. Such views are wicked and destructive."

The Truth about AIDS in Afrika

Piggybacking off of Wangari Maathai original statement, I decided to investigate the origins of this disease that has ravaged Afrikan people both on the continent and in the Diaspora. I will use the article Debunking The Out Of Africa Origin Of HIV & AIDS by Dr. Cantwell as my primary reference.

The origin of AIDS started when monkeys or chimps in the Afrikan bush, which already carried the AIDS virus (HIV) transferred it to human being either by in gestation or infected via a bite. This was known as the Green Monkey theory, which was developed by Dr. Richard Gallo in 1984. Luc Montaigne of the Pasteur Institute of Paris, who claimed to have co-discovered the virus, challenged Gallo. To this day it has never been settled, thus neither scientist has been award the Nobel Prize for its discovery. However, of the two, Gallo's ideas are the more popular, and he is the developer of the Green Monkey theory. The virus eventually named the human T-cell lymphotropic virus-3 (HTLV-3). It was first identified in a 52 year-old, black, bisexual male. This virus' bacteria are similar to cancer, however, cancer is considered noncommunicable whereas AIDS is sexually transmitted.

Where did Gallo's new virus come from? According to the journal Science (Jan 4, 1985) it was reported that Gallo's AIDS virus was most closely related to viruses found in sheep and goats, particularly the visna virus in sheep. But Gallo rejected this idea because the idea of a sheep virus infecting gay men would have undoubtedly aroused suspicion because the only place one could find visna was in research labs. Gallo, with the help of veterinarian Max Essex of Harvard, convinced the AIDS experts and the adoring media that AIDS came from green monkeys. This claim was totally unfounded. Gallo claimed that in 1983 (a year before his discovery of the virus?) that Ann Giudici Fettner, a free-lance journalist who had lived in Africa, told him that the virus came from green monkeys in central Africa. However, Fettner's in her 1984 book, The Truth About AIDS, never mentioned a green monkey-Afrikan connection. In fact, she clearly states, "AIDS started as an American disease." To this date, though the Green Monkey theory lingers in many a mind, there is no scientific papers, which uphold the theory. Despite the fact that the first case of AIDS was found in Manhattan, scientist continued to insist its origins lied in Afrika.

According to Cantwell it is entirely possible that AIDS was created in the laboratory as a result of a decade of scientist mixing and adapting massive numbers of cancer-causing and immunosuppressive animal viruses and transferring them between various animal species in an attempt to experimentally produce cancer in the laboratory. He states: "In the process of these "species-jumping" experiments, the scientists mixed viruses together, seeded them into the bodies of various animal species, and planted them into animal and human cell cultures. In the process myriads of new, laboratory-created mutant, hybrid and recombinant viruses were created, some of which were exceedingly dangerous."

For what purpose would scientist engage in virus adaptation and experimentation. One was for biowarfare. As early as 1969, Donald A MacArthur stated in Congressional testimony that "molecular biology is a field that is advancing very rapidly and eminent biologists believe that within a period of 5 to 10 years it would be possible to produce a synthetic biological agent, an agent that does not exist naturally and for which no natural immunity could have been acquired." In other words, these agents would have military applications. The perils of such tampering were known at the time as the Danish pathologist J Clemmesen warned that the transmissibility of these genetically-altered viral agents could cause a world epidemic of cancer if they escaped from the laboratory. Despite the risks, however, it was decided to continue with cancer-virus experimentation.